AJOB Empirical Bioethics最新文献

{"title":"Development and Validation of a Stakeholder-Driven, Self-Contained Electronic Informed Consent Platform for Trio-Based Genomic Research Studies.","authors":"Bethany Y Norton, James Liu, Sara A Lewis, Helen Magee, Tyler N Kruer, Rachael Dinh, Somayeh Bakhtiari, Sandra H Nordlie, Sheetal Shetty, Jennifer Heim, Yumi Nishiyama, Jorge Arango, Darcy Johnson, Lee Seabrooke, Mitchell Shub, Robert Rosenberg, Michele Shusterman, Stephen Wisniewski, Blair Cooper, Erin Rothwell, Michael C Fahey, M Wade Shrader, Nancy Lennon, Joyce Oleszek, Wendy Pierce, Hannah Fleming, Mohan Belthur, Jennifer Tinto, Garey Noritz, Laurie Glader, Kelsey Steffen, William Walker, Deborah Grenard, Bhooma Aravamuthan, Kristie Bjornson, Malin Joseph, Paul Gross, Michael C Kruer","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497756","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasingly long and complex informed consents have yielded studies demonstrating comparatively low participant <i>understanding</i> and <i>satisfaction</i> with traditional face-to-face approaches. In parallel, interest in electronic consents for clinical and research genomics has steadily increased, yet limited data are available for trio-based genomic discovery studies. We describe the design, development, implementation, and validation of an electronic iConsent application for trio-based genomic research deployed to support genomic studies of cerebral palsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>iConsent development incorporated stakeholder perspectives including researchers, patient advocates, institutional review board members, and genomic data-sharing considerations. The iConsent platform integrated principles derived from prior electronic consenting research and elements of multimedia learning theory. Participant understanding was assessed in an interactive teachback format. The iConsent application achieved nine of ten proposed desiderata for effective patient-focused electronic consenting for genomic research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, participants demonstrated high <i>understanding</i> and <i>retention</i> of key human subjects considerations. Enrollees reported high levels of <i>satisfaction</i> with the iConsent, and we found that participant <i>understanding</i>, iConsent <i>clarity</i>, <i>privacy protections</i>, and <i>study goal explanations</i> were associated with overall <i>satisfaction</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although opportunities exist to optimize iConsent, we show that such an approach is feasible, can satisfy multiple stakeholder requirements, and can realize high participant <i>satisfaction</i> and <i>understanding</i> while increasing study reach.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144477064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.","authors":"Ben H Lang, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Meghan Hurley, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing interest in deploying artificial intelligence tools in clinical contexts has raised several ethical questions of both normative and empirical interest. One such question in the literature is whether \"responsibility gaps\" (r-gaps) are created when clinicians utilize or rely on such tools for providing care, and if so, what to do about them. These gaps are particularly likely to arise when using opaque, \"black box\" AI tools. Compared to normative and legal analysis of AI-generated responsibility gaps in health care, little is known, empirically, about health care providers views on this issue. The present study examines clinician perspectives on this issue in the context of black box AI decisional support systems (BBAI-DSS) in advanced heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians (14 cardiologists and 6 LVAD nurse coordinators). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed for salient themes. All study procedures were approved by local IRB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that <i>all</i> clinicians voiced that, if someone were responsible for the use and outcomes of black box AI, it would be physicians. We compare clinician perspectives on the existence of r-gaps and their impact on responsibility for errors or adverse outcomes when BBAI-DSS tools are used against a taxonomy from the literature, finding some clinicians acknowledging an r-gap and others denying it or its relevance in medical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians varied in their view about the existence of r-gaps but were united in their ascriptions of physician responsibility for the use of BBAI-DSS in clinical care. It was unclear at times whether these were descriptive or normative judgments (i.e., is it merely inevitable physicians will be responsible, or is it morally appropriate that they be held responsible?) or both. We discuss the likely normative inadequacy of such a conception of physician responsibility for BBAI tool use.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144042646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Survey of OB/GYN Residents Knowledge and Practice of Trauma Informed Care.","authors":"Lauren Stokes, Adriane Burgess, Paul Burcher","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497757","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a high prevalence of a history of traumatic experiences among those seeking obstetric/gynecologic care. OB/GYN clinicians must use trauma-informed care practices to avoid re-traumatization and to provide supportive care. The objective of this study was to describe the knowledge and use of trauma-informed care practices by OB/GYN residents in the outpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A descriptive research design was used. In February 2022, an email with a link to an electronic survey was sent to US OB/GYN residency program directors <i>via</i> a listserv. OB/GYN program directors were asked to forward the survey to residents in their program. The survey included closed-response questions, some of which were Likert scale, to assess the frequency of use of certain trauma-informed care practices during the provision of pelvic examinations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy US OB/GYN residents responded to the survey. Only half of residents surveyed reported that they practiced trauma-informed care and half reported either not receiving education or were not sure if they had training on the subject. Additionally, half of the respondents were unaware of the ACOG Committee Opinion 825: Care of Patients with History of Trauma.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was limited use of trauma-informed care practices among OB/GYN residents in this study. Considering the high prevalence of traumatic experiences among individuals seeking gynecologic care, a framework for trauma-informed pelvic exams should be included in the residency curriculum and applied universally.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144014337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Brian Minalga, Rona Siskind, Russell Campbell, Tyler Adamson, Mary Allegra Cermak, Annet Davis, Eddie D Givens, Molly Dyer, Katie McCarthy, Nicole A Montañez, Rhonda White","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497753","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When clinical trials fail to enroll diverse study populations, a multitude of consequences can occur, including compromised validity and generalizability, safety and efficacy uncertainties, regulatory limitations, widened disparities, distrust in science and medicine, and undermined efforts to address urgent health needs. We developed the Representative Studies Rubric (RSR), a questionnaire that evaluates the extent to which clinical trials are designed to enroll representative study populations with a focus on age, ethnicity, drug use, gender, pregnancy, race, and sex assigned at birth. We used the RSR to conduct an analysis of all active studies in the NIH-funded HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks (Networks) and identified patterns of research practices that may limit the participation of underrepresented populations, with ethical implications. The Networks subsequently formalized the RSR as a required protocol development tool for all future studies to correct exclusionary research practices with the goal to achieve more representative study populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144053819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Survey of Attitudes Toward Social Justice Obligations in the Field of Bioethics.","authors":"Danielle M Pacia, Sana S Baban, Faith E Fletcher, Zamina Mithani Aziz, Jane F Cooper, J Wesley Boyd, Ryan J Dougherty","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2474915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2474915","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study examines the views of bioethicists in the US and Canada on incorporating social justice into their work and the field more broadly.</p><p><p><b>Methods:</b> Through an iterative process with leaders in bioethics, we created a survey and distributed it via bioethics listservs and individual emails.</p><p><p><b>Results:</b> Ultimately, we received responses from 355 bioethicists in the US and Canada. Respondents showed strong support for integrating social justice concerns, with 80% endorsing its inclusion in bioethics and 75% believing it should be a key aim of bioethics scholarship. However, engagement with specific social justice topics varied, and perceptions about institutional support for doing so were mixed. Early-career bioethicists were more likely to support integrating social justice into bioethics.</p><p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings highlight the importance of prioritizing social justice within bioethics and underscore the need for institutional support to advance these efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144053216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States.","authors":"Olivia P Sutton, Brent M Kious","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433474","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433474","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some have hypothesized that changing attitudes toward medical aid in dying (MAID) contribute to increased suicide rates, perhaps by increasing interest in dying or the perceived acceptability of suicide. This would represent a strong criticism of MAID policies. We sought to evaluate the association between the legalization and implementation of MAID across the U.S. and changing suicide rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated state-level monthly suicide death rates from 1995 to 2021. Because suicide rates vary by state, we constructed geographically-weighted regression models controlling for annualized state-level sociodemographic factors, such as racial distribution (percent Caucasian), average age, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of spiritual engagement, firearm ownership rates, gender ratios, and education levels. We applied a difference-in-difference analysis within our geographically-weighted models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>927,929 Suicide deaths were represented in the study. Ten states and the District of Columbia had legalized MAID within the study period. In an univariable analysis, states that legalized MAID differed significantly from non-MAID states with respect to mean monthly suicide rate (non-MAID States: 1.46; MAID states: 1.78; <i>p</i> < 0.0001), as well as several covariates. Monthly suicide death rates were spatially autocorrelated (Moran's <i>I</i> = 0.607, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). In separate geographically-weighted difference-in-difference analyses, changes in suicide rates were not significantly associated with MAID legalization (<i>β</i> = 0.042, <i>p</i> = 0.33) or with later MAID implementation (<i>β</i> = 0.030, <i>p</i> = 0.63), with differences in suicide rates in MAID and non-MAID states being attributable to baseline between-state differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study failed to find evidence that suicide rates were positively associated with MAID legalization or MAID implementation, when controlling for geographic variation and multiple sociodemographic factors associated with suicide risk. This finding contrasts with other studies that have reported a positive association between suicide rates and MAID, and so calls into question one argument against MAID legalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"85-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142802599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Enhancing Animals is \"Still Genetics\": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement.","authors":"Rebecca L Walker, Zachary Ferguson, Logan Mitchell, Margaret Waltz","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2441688","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2441688","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonhuman animals are regularly enhanced genomically with CRISPR and other gene editing tools as scientists aim at better models for biomedical research, more tractable agricultural animals, or animals that are otherwise well suited to a defined purpose. This study investigated how genome editors and policymakers perceived ethical or policy benefits and drawbacks for animal enhancement and how perceived benefits and drawbacks are alike, or differ from, those for human genome editing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified scientists through relevant literature searches as well as conference presentations. Policymakers were identified through rosters of genome editing oversight groups (e.g., International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, World Health Organization) or efforts aimed at influencing policy (e.g., deliberative democracy groups). Interviews covered participants' views on ethical differences between interventions affecting somatic or germline cells and distinctions between using gene editing for disease treatment, prevention, and enhancement purposes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 92 participants interviewed, 81 were genome editing scientists, and 33 were policymakers, with 22 interviewees being both scientists and policymakers. Multiple areas were identified in which the ethical implications of genomic enhancements for nonhuman animals differ from those for human animals including with respect to experiential welfare; germline edits; environmental sustainability; and justice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, respondents viewed that animal enhancement is unburdened by the ethical complexities of human enhancement. These views may be related to participant perceptions of animals' lesser moral status and because germline editing in animals is common practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"94-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048263/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142847861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Whether to Offer Interventions at the End of Life: What Physicians Consider and How Clinical Ethicists Can Help.","authors":"Joelle Robertson-Preidler, Mikaela Kim, Sophia Fantus, Janet Malek","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2457705","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2457705","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in life-prolonging technologies increasingly create dilemmas for physicians who must decide whether to offer various interventions to patients nearing the end of life. Clinical ethicists are often consulted to support physicians in making these complex decisions and can do so most effectively if they understand physicians' reasons for making recommendations in this context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with surgeons, nephrologists, intensivists, emergency physicians, and oncologists regarding the considerations they have used to make decisions about offering interventions for patients nearing the end of life. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified six types of considerations physicians take into account: (1) patient characteristics at baseline; (2) likelihood to cause harm; (3) likelihood to achieve a goal or perceived benefit; (4) patient and family values and preferences; (5) institutional factors, and (6) professional and personal factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While considerations converged into major themes, many participants evaluated and applied these themes differently, opening the door to potential disagreement and variation based on physicians' personal values. Clinical ethicists can help navigate uncertainty and resolve conflicts by helping physicians recognize, evaluate, and communicate their decisional factors to aid informed decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"103-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143189950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards.","authors":"Helena Arango, Colette Gramszlo, Jaideep Grewal, Arzu Cetin, Meaghann Weaver, Jennifer K Walter","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433473","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2433473","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH), a professional organization that certifies ethics consultants who pass the qualifying examination, published standards for the conduct of ethics consultations (EC). A national survey of adult hospital ethics consultants identified adherence to these standards, but no assessment of pediatric hospitals' adherence has been done.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, a national questionnaire was distributed electronically in 2022 to pediatric ethics consultants at children's hospitals, collecting information about adherence to the ASBH standards. Hospital characteristics were extracted from the Children's Hospital Association Annual Benchmark Report. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics to assess adherence and analyses of variance to investigate associations between hospital characteristics and the time taken to respond to consultations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 181 eligible pediatric hospitals, we received 104 completed surveys (57%) from 45 states. Pediatric EC have similar adherence rates to ASBH standards as adult hospitals. High-adherence (>75%) areas included having an expert available for EC and permitting any staff member to request EC. Low-adherence areas included having comprehensive policies covering all aspects of EC activities, having a response plan for egregious violations, and the elicitation of formal feedback after EC. There is an increased average response time for ethics consultation services in smaller pediatric hospitals and church-operated hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pediatric hospitals overall have moderate adherence to the ASBH EC standards, with the highest rates occurring for standards that are shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Additional research into the barriers to standard adherence and the effectiveness of standards is warranted with emphasis on the impact of adherence on consultation quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142787217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons.","authors":"Yi Jiao Angelina Tian, Vanessa Duong, Eike Buhr, Nadine Andrea Felber, Delphine Roulet Schwab, Tenzin Wangmo","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2416121","DOIUrl":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2416121","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>States and families are facing growing challenges provide adequate care for older persons. Smart home health technologies (SHHTs) in the forms of sensor or robotic devices have been discussed as technical solutions for caregiving. Ethical and social concerns are raised with the use of such technologies for caregiving purposes, a particularly prominent one being privacy. This paper contributes to the literature by distinguishing privacy concerns into both the type of technologies and conceptual dimensions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data for this paper stem from sixty semi-structured interviews with older persons, informal, and formal caregivers living in the German-speaking regions of Switzerland. All information related to privacy, that were initially inductively coded, were thematically sorted into four dimensions of privacy (physical, psychological, social, and informational) and by the type of technologies studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were especially concerned about privacy intrusions from smart wearables and ambient sensors than robotic technologies, which may be due to the relative lack of familiarity with the latter. Informational privacy was evident in the context of data collection capacities and potential for misuses of data. The installation and implementation of both visual and ambient sensors induced discomfort to their senses of physical space. Alerts of smart wearables and obtrusive sightings of SHHTs garnered worries related to stigmatization and manipulation, indicating intrusions into end-users' psychological privacy. Little discussions of social dimensions of privacy were evident in the data, even toward robotic technologies for their functions to promote social interactions for older persons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This paper is one of the first that use the stratification approach on empirical data to highlight the multi-faceted privacy concerns when technologies may be implemented in elder care. Our paper could thus supports potential end-users in deciding which technologies to use and how to balance different privacy concerns against other values that they may hold important.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"61-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142476863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}